As was the CUMP <sarcasm> which is NOT DEAD... its just that all the
participants have been madly working on their own for, what, 6 months
now?</sarcasm>

<flame>
The point is that programmers (and test equipment) seem to be something that
are totally ruled by "perceived value" If you charge $1000 for it, then it
must be really good and everybody will buy it. But if you try to make one
open source (or do in fact make one in the case of "the Engine" which is a
hell of a neat programmer) no one seems to want it.

Although some people (Hi Dan) have beat me bloody about the head and ears
over this point, I still don't understand how hobbyists can be so damn
STUPID as to not see the value in this. Is there some law that says we can't
build our own programmers and test equipment? And do a better job than the
commercial people? (Don't say it Dan)

The only thing people are interested in is the Free ICD, which is a clone of
the Microchip product. Is it that we have no confidence in our own abilities
to do a better job and must only copy others works?

James Newton wrote:
>
>As was the CUMP <sarcasm> which is NOT DEAD... its just that all the
>participants have been madly working on their own for, what, 6 months
>now?</sarcasm>
>
><flame>
>The point is that programmers (and test equipment) seem to be something that
>are totally ruled by "perceived value" If you charge $1000 for it, then it
>must be really good and everybody will buy it. But if you try to make one
>open source (or do in fact make one in the case of "the Engine" which is a
>hell of a neat programmer) no one seems to want it.
>
>Although some people (Hi Dan) have beat me bloody about the head and ears
>over this point, I still don't understand how hobbyists can be so damn
>STUPID as to not see the value in this. Is there some law that says we can't
>build our own programmers and test equipment? And do a better job than the
>commercial people? (Don't say it Dan)
>

Well, having been singled out here, I guess I'll put in my $0.02.
It's not STUPIDITY, it's REALITY and PRAGMATISM.

I was not around here during the advent of CUMP or the Engine, but my
perception of this whole thing is that most people on piclist don't
want [or have the time] to hack these sorta things. They want something
as cheap as possible [some have even been known to cut their Radio
Shack pcbs in half to save $$$], and with as little learning curve as
possible - get this over with, and then get on with their projects.
I know I am much that way. These things are just "tools" and byways on
the way to an end-goal, not avocations, for most poeple.
==================

>The only thing people are interested in is the Free ICD, which is a clone of
>the Microchip product. Is it that we have no confidence in our own abilities
>to do a better job and must only copy others works?
>
>Lame.
></flame>
>

The reason I think that the Free ICD is so popular, but the CUMP flamed,
is *ONE* thing --> it works with MPLAB. After taking the time and effort
to learn MPLAB [which is free], the ICD [also free] has a natural appeal.
I few cheap parts, and botta bing. No hacking, besides one-time h.w.
Then on to the projects. More than anything, the Free ICD sealed the
fate of CUMP. Reality is a harse mistress.

It's hard to compete with free [MPLAB], free [ICD], free, free, free,
free, free - this is true 21th century internet capitalism. The reason
the CUMP failed is because it was all committee meetings and no workers.
Just like communism - no payoff that the guy doing the work could
perceive.

The other thing of course is that there are sooooo mannnnnyyyy programmers
out there now, free, cheap, and otherwise.

I am amazed, after using Linux for more than 5 years, and meeting oodles
of people doing the same, to see the confusion between 'free' and 'open
source' go on. Open source means mostly that the source of a program
(which you buy or not) is available to you so you can maintain and modify
it to suit your goals. Free means that you pay no money for something.

There is ABSOLUTELY no connection between these two, and the GPL, Linux,
LGPL, LGPL2, and BSD license or any artistic license or other such thing.
Also 'open source' and 'public domain' are different. 'public domain' can
be open source AND must be free.

So an open source programmer is a commercial programmer to whose API or
source you get access (perhaps after signing a NDA). This is essential to
make production units work, as I can see no way to integrate and maintain
certain in-circuit production line programmers without having access to
source. You must remember that there are industries where people just
don't talk to you if you sell something that cannot be adjusted,
reproduced or modified and recompiled (as long as we are talking tools,
not products). The key is to sell the technology, not the product.

> I am amazed, after using Linux for more than 5 years, and meeting oodles
> of people doing the same, to see the confusion between 'free' and 'open
> source' go on. Open source means mostly that the source of a program
> (which you buy or not) is available to you so you can maintain and modify
> it to suit your goals. Free means that you pay no money for something.

The original idea of CUMP was to be open/free-everything. In
the public domain of piclist and the world. There was some talk
about it a few months ago, but nobody wanted to actually bite the
bullet and do any work. And as I indicated a day or two ago,
with so many other free/free/free/cheap/cheap/cheap programmers
around, it was kinda like reinventing the wheel. Then, along came
the Free ICD, and the coffin was caulked.

The word 'free' has been overloaded by the FSF to carry the four meanings
listed in a prior post. These meanings of the word are not those common when
referring to other 'free' products.

For my purpose, I needed a programmer with available source code so that I
could modify it to 'calibrate' the unit being programmed (by actually
running a program in the unit, then burning on the calibration constants).

This certainly matches some of the connotations of 'free' as defined by FSF,
but can also be met by rather 'unfree' (restricted?) implementations. An
example would be a proprietary system available under NDA.

While I am a big fan of the 'open-source' / FSF / whatever you want to call
it movement, I do feel that it is appropriate for programmers to be able to
maintain ownership of their intellectual property and to profit from it. We
don't expect other forms of intellectual property to be 'freely' shared, why
must it apply to software?

[Steppin' down from soapbox.]

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems
(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
software)

The FSF did not coin the term or define what Free or Open Source is. Afaik
it is not possible to copyright or trademark words found in a common
dictionary, such as for example 'Open Source' (not even if you use
capitals). And if it is possible then we live in a world that is really
really sad. They have an opinion and others have other opinions.

For a truly 'free public domain software' (i.e. take it and don't tell me
about it) definition read the U.C.Berkeley license to be found in many
source files on the net, among them many used in Linux systems. This is
not a matter of philosophy imho, it is a matter of common law and common
sense.

And it has nothing to do with open (or 'with source') PIC programmers.

Just by their name "Free Software Foundation", the FSF has connected their
own meaning to the term "Free Software", and also, by association, "free
software" (without the caps). Perhaps they should have named themselves the
"Freely Obtainable, Non-Supported, Do What You Want With It, ... Software
Foundation." This might alleviate some confusion.

Of course, we are free to assign whatever meaning we want to "free", and
even to "Free". :-)

What really matters is that there is a whole spectrum of ideas of
"individual intellectual property rights" vs. "freely available
information", and it is a good that that that is so.

For example, I am more than willing to share some of the tools I build for
myself, but would not be willing to give away code I have written for
customers (nor would they allow me to.)

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems
(contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
software)

I was under the understanding that one could trademark a phrase, provided it was
not in common use.

"Where do you want to go today?" can be trademarked, but "The cat's out of the
bag" could not.

At this point "Open Source" is used so widely by different entities that one
would probably not be able to trademark it and defend the trademark against
use. (sure, they can trademark it, but they won't be able to stop someone else
from using it)

>
> >What you are saying here contradicts the definition provided by the FSF:
> >http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
> The FSF did not coin the term or define what Free or Open Source is. Afaik
> it is not possible to copyright or trademark words found in a common
> dictionary, such as for example 'Open Source' (not even if you use
> capitals). And if it is possible then we live in a world that is really
> really sad. They have an opinion and others have other opinions.
>
> For a truly 'free public domain software' (i.e. take it and don't tell me
> about it) definition read the U.C.Berkeley license to be found in many
> source files on the net, among them many used in Linux systems. This is
> not a matter of philosophy imho, it is a matter of common law and common
> sense.
>
> And it has nothing to do with open (or 'with source') PIC programmers.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]: PIC only [EE]: engineering [OT]: off topic [AD]: advertisements

Bob Ammerman wrote:
> Just by their name "Free Software Foundation", the FSF has connected their
> own meaning to the term "Free Software", and also, by association, "free
> software" (without the caps). Perhaps they should have named themselves the
> "Freely Obtainable, Non-Supported, Do What You Want With It, ... Software
> Foundation." This might alleviate some confusion.

And would also be quite incorrect. I've gotten better support using
software from the FSF than I've gotten from most commercial stuff.

> Of course, we are free to assign whatever meaning we want to "free", and
> even to "Free". :-)

They then go on to give a full definition of what they mean by the term
"free software".
--
Mike Werner KA8YSD | He that is slow to believe anything and
| everything is of great understanding,
'91 GS500E | for belief in one false principle is the
Morgantown WV | beginning of all unwisdom.